Is this a simpler way of considering reality physics?

A simple physics description of universal reality and how it might theoretically work in the manner that it does

A] The Planck line separates quantum from sub-quantum phenomena. It represents the smallest material phenomena that physicists can detect and measure.

B] Below the Planck line is where Quantum Mechanics theory steps in [all the weird things that are known to happen in physics such as that all things and events are somehow connected to each other and acts as though the Universe has its own consciousness and can think].

C] The dotted lines below Quantum Mechanics [B as illustrated above] are representational of things and events that are more weird than those things happening in the universe than those occurring at the Quantum Mechanics level. This lower level physics is the deepest level of physics and is sometimes referred to by Physicists as being informational physics. Human consciousness and intuition might be seen to be as examples of phenomena at this level.

D] Above the Planck line (A) is the quantum and the atomic levels of physics where things and events can be observed and measured. These levels embrace materialist [meaning observable and testable] objects and movement. For example these include various effects of movement as described in Einstein’s theories.

E] Quantum theory includes phenomena entitled non-locality [entanglement theory]. Non-locality embraces and influences and effects all things and events in both the quantum [D level in the above diagram] as well as those at the B and C level in the same diagram. [The C level might be considered to be the “home” of non-locality].

At least three models of unity physics are thought by physicists to work along the lines of what I have described (Cahill, Hiley-Bohm and Freeman).

The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

Demonstrating the explicit and implicit nature of all that ‘IS’. New physics experiments show us new ways in which to think about holistic reality and our relationship with it

Introduction to prologue

The eight principal points with respect to this introduction are to…

1. Introduce you to my concept that the universe has two continuums (platforms), implicit and explicit.

2. Briefly discuss what I consider to be the important roles both of these continuums play in the universe with respect to its workings.

3. Talk about what I consider to be Einstein’s Special and General Relativity models with respect to these implicit and explicit continuums. I discuss the role of Quantum Theory within these relationships as well.

4. Demonstrate why I consider that failure of both Einstein’s models to embrace some sort of ether theory (like my concept of an implicit continuum) was responsible for Einstein not being able to fully develop his Special and General relativity theories in the manner that he had originally hoped to (I do not say either of Einstein’s theories is completely wrong!).

5. Point out that I feel that the ‘seat’ of physics sits much deeper than contemporary Quantum Theory is currently exploring and testing.

6. The heart of reality physics must be searched for in non-mechanical physics that I consider to be a much deeper layer of quantum mechanics, where all ‘things’ are possible in all reference frames.

7. That the recent proof that non-locality is real provides a useful tool in demonstrating what I consider to be the natural mechanical and non-mechanical duopoly state of the universe.

8. Point out that I have constructed this prologue so it a useful tool to help you to better understand the ideas and material that I have created for you to consider in the body of this presentation.

Prologue to IS

(The principle text)

This presentation looks at and discusses whether all ‘things’ in the universe can be reliably described as being mechanically and materially ‘something’, or nothing at all. This may appear to be a weird statement to make, but when you think about it carefully, the idea may not be so extraordinary at all. You will find that my presentation features many different lines of thinking as I talk about what I consider to be the ‘real’ nature of our universe. By this I mean universal reality. I am committed to the idea that the universe is a duopoly of what I have referred to as explicit material and mechanical things (and related events) as well as what I see as like a second layer of reality. This second layer is devoid of any scientifically ‘normal’ physical association with all that is explicit in the universe. It has no related mechanical or material conditions.

This presentation explains what I see as the duopoly of the universe and what this probably means for the future of physics. You will also find that I do not claim that Albert Einstein was wrong with his Special and General Relativity theories. I say they are significantly incomplete because they do not have a common reference frame (‘legs’) that explains how and why both models work in the manner that they do.

I say that that all explicit things and events are ‘swimming’ in the implicit reference frame of the universe, which, from a physical perspective, is nothing. I say that Quantum Theory non-locality (also known as quantum entanglement) is informationally representative of all that is materially-nothing in the universe. By this I mean that from my perspective, quantum non-locality is all that is implicit in the universe. Einstein distrusted this theory. He referred to it as being a ‘spooky’ theory. However, as quantum theory has demonstrated, all ‘things’ in the universe, including you and me and our pets, are somehow connected to each other. This includes our explicit (particle) selves as well as our implicit (non-material) selves, by means of such things as instinct and intuition. Some people have learned how to exploit their implicit selves by means of such things as water divining and becoming successful clairvoyants. An American physicist has been able to demonstrate by experiment such weird associations between our implicit and explicit selves (that makes us the holistic and functioning people that we are) but also that our minds (perhaps consciousness) are somehow outside of us. This experiment is in accordance with my universal implicit and explicit universe ideas.

When Einstein related his Special and General relativity theories, he built both his models around his concept of space, objects, and movement between objects. He related his Special Relativity model to clock time for it to make sense in the manner that he constructed it. However, when Einstein later released his General Relativity model (built around the speed of light) he needed ‘something’ to build it around before it made sense. In this instance he nominated this something as being ether (along the traditional lines of Newtonian physics but not exactly the same). The bind that Einstein then found himself in was that whilst he needed ether (or some sort of other analogical platform like ether) for his General Relativity theory to work, it did not work in his Special Relativity theory. This means from a holistic universal reality perspective, either one way or the other, one of his models was wrong* This relativity physics dilemma remains a matter of great difficulty for relativity physicists to this day.

*With respect to time in ether theory, time is measured in relation to the speed of light. This is within a timeless reference frame with respect to moving objects.

However, if Einstein had built both his models in a timeless frame of reference, with a common ‘something’ between them, both his models would have worked. A fellow physicist at the time (Lorentz) informed Einstein of this and pointed out that the mathematics of his without time relativity model and Einsteins Special Relativity model were much the same. However, Einstein remained committed to his two theories relating to time (one related to clock time and the other to the speed of light) otherwise he would have had to make a significant number of changes that he felt were unwarranted. Einstein desperately wanted models (preferably a single model if he could build it) that were entirely physical. He did not like theories that were not physically explainable and testable in a lab. In Einsteins opinion, ether theory did not fall into this lab testable category.

Einstein’s two models were not only easier to understand but easier to work with by his colleagues. This situation further complicated the physics debate at the time. Most physicists at that time wanted a ‘quick fix’ to the persistent inability over many centuries to bring together a single model of physics that satisfactorily explained ‘all things’ relating to science. From my perspective, Einstein failed to accept that some sort of implicit type of ether would have worked with both his Special and General relativity models. By setting aside the notion of an ether in his Special Relativity model, this meant that he set aside from his models some sort of ether type (perhaps implicit space foam of virtual particles) that could have then been the natural continuum of both his Special and General Relativity models.

I feel that Einstein made a mistake by doing this. I consider that he was denying the separate existence of the natural implicit continuum of the universe. It is against this background that it is important and ironic to know that in 1920 Einstein made a major speech in Germany about the necessity to have an ether type reference frame for both his models (like a common something). He also rejected emerging quantum mechanics theories in order to help both his models make sense because they included weird ‘non-locality’ and entanglement influences (like all things somehow being connected to each other). Non-locality (entanglement theory) later became known as Quantum Theory. The weird nature of non-locality had been ‘floating’ around the physics community at that time, but for explicit (material/mechanical) reasons it was rejected by Einstein, and many of his peers as well. Einstein spent his latter years trying to prove that spooky quantum theory was wrong. Mainstream physics today remains built upon the same types of explicit scientific ideas as it did in the early part of the twentieth century.

In my opinion had the concept of a non-local (sub-quantum) type of ether been embraced in Einstein’s two models this would have meant that both of his Special and General Relativity models would have worked in a manner that fulfilled the mathematical and descriptive properties that his relativity hypotheses demanded. Had Einstein done this he would have embraced something non-locally ‘mystical’ from Quantum Theory that in turn could be seen as being allied to my concept of a separate implicit reference frame of a non-local continuum for all that ‘IS’ in the universe. I say that this continuum would have been the same implicit continuum that I discussed earlier in a concurrent duopoly arrangement with the explicit (material and mechanical) continuum. These words explain what I see as the natural duopoly of the universe. This duopoly explains how and why the universe successfully works in the manner that it does. However, they do not explain how our universe came into being in such a dual continuum in the first place.

The Big Bang is real. The explosion occurred because there was a set of unknown conditions that existed within the reference frame from which the Big Bang exploded. If this were the case, without such ‘things’, there would not have been a Big Bang explosion in the first place. This could be analogous to an odourless and highly inflammable gas build-up in a large factory before such an event as a simple electrical short circuit flash ignited the gas that destroyed the factory and all of its component parts and human lives therein. In this sense the factory that I talk about can be seen to be a minuscule representation of the wider pre-Big Bang reference frame.

Scientists have a good idea what the mechanical conditions and associated effects of the Big Bang were as it exploded. By this I mean gas types, electricity and fundamental particles with no mass such as preons, gluons and quarks. It is more specifically gluons and quarks that hold the universe together, and these emanated from the Big Bang. These include magnetism and electricity as well. I think it can be presumed that all these fundamental ‘things’ existed before the Big Bang too. However, there were obviously plenty of other things (both implicit and explicit) that existed before the Big Bang epoch. These other things didn’t all suddenly ‘just disappear’ following the Big Bang, which itself took place within such an implicit and explicit reference frame. There could be massive numbers of non-local things before the Big Bang that we are likely to never know about or understand, especially if the laws of physics were different from those in our universe. I feel that it would be short sighted to suggest that whatever conditions existed before the Big Bang simply disappeared after that single explosion that caused the creation of our universe.

Both of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories, together with quantum particle theories, give physicists a good idea as to what material ‘things’ turned up in our universe from the effects of the Big Bang. From my earlier words I think that we must assume that implicit non-locality (non-local things manifested in reality-science as sub-quantum mechanics conditions, influences and affects) already existing before the Big Bang are also present in our universe.

Within the context of what I am talking about, both of Einstein’s relativity theories are valid with respect to my concept of an explicit material/mechanical reference frame continuum. I also see Quantum Theory as being a legitimate theory with respect to such material mechanical models as Einstein Special and General Relativity models. It is because of this inter-mechanical relationship between all forms of material relativity theories (including other ‘brands’ of physics models apart from Einstein’s models) and quantum theory that I refer to Quantum Theory as being a mechanically explicit model as well. I do not see it as being an implicit theory. With this in mind, the question then becomes “What is left in our universe after removing all such explicit things and events relating to these models in order to describe all that is mysterious (or weird) in the universe?” In my opinion the only way to do this is by building ‘legs’ on Quantum Theory that dig deeper than quantum mechanics currently does into holistic reality physics.

I believe what physicists need to do is to understand and describe how and why quantum mechanics works, and makes the unusual (descriptive) mathematical predictions in Quantum Theory that it does. It is at this deep level that I say is the ‘real home’ of all that is non-local (entangled) in the universe. These words also describe the meaning of my definition of what ‘implicit’ means. The only way to reliably explain the difference between what is implicit and explicit in the universe is this. By informationally comparing the holistic conditions and affects that existed at the time of the Big Bang and then informationally removing all existing scientific knowledge relating to material and mechanical things from this explosion period of the Big Bang you are left with a residual “something”. By doing this we can then visualise these “somethings” in order to see what ‘gaps’ there might be between the two different sets of information. I say that the gaps between both sets of information are non-local information that is real, because we experience it every day around us, including in nature. This is the duopoly of the universe in action. It is an implicit and explicit duopoly that gives material ‘things’ both meaning and a sense of purpose both unto itself (how and why they exist) as well as us in the universe. This in turn also explains my concept of there being both an implicit and explicit continuum in the universe.

The two non-local experiments that you are about to learn about prove the existence of non-locality in the universe, as well as its mysterious non-mechanical properties.

The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

(Principle text)

Demonstrating the explicit and implicit nature of all that “IS”. New physics experiments show us new ways in which to think about holistic reality and our relationship with it

For a number of years I have talked about what I consider to be the dual nature of all ‘things’. Two recent physics experiments that I have discovered have encouraged me to revisit some of my earlier works, and think about how they could be more meaningfully restructured. This is in order to include these two new experimental findings into my opinion that all things and events in the universe can be seen as being what I have nominated as being both implicit and explicit (dual) things and events. This is as though both of these explicit and implicit things and events are in some sort of informationally meaningful and describable relationship with each other. In this document I bring together my current ideas about explicit and explicit reality and our relationship with it.

Where I talk about reality, I mean from the biggest to the smallest thing in reality. This ranges from the holistic matrix of reality itself to a single implicit thought. My central theme is that all explicit things and events have structure and implicit things do not. I talk about how explicit things and events are informationally related to (entangled) with each other. Furthermore this dual relationship acts in a coordinated way as though the universe has its own mind. I state that these two new physics experiments (demonstrating why implicit non-local physics phenomena are real) I feel that are likely to change the direction of physics one day for ever.

It is important as you read this document that you keep in mind that in this presentation I do not always employ words or language that are commonly employed in the science community. This is despite that my descriptive meanings in many areas might be the same. Also for reasons of convenience I have not employed a general reference system in this material. However, I have provided links to information that is important in substantiating the key areas of my argument. My major objective today is to provide you with a line of thinking to consider.

My observations and explanations

When I think about reality I think about it as being in two parts. I see material parts (objects) and events relating thereto as being explicit parts which are concurrently ‘entangled’ with each other (this is not as they are in quantum theory*) This is in respect to energy types, conditions, influences and effects by means of some sort of arrangement of these parts. They have meaning themselves as well as to an observer at the Planck line** in relation to these parts. Explicit parts can be seen as being like a field of constitutive difference that is a process that is informationally waxing and waning unto itself with informational meaning. This is waxing and waning as though it had purpose as well. Our physical selves are part of this meaning and purpose too. This is because all matter relating to explicit ‘things’ (including us) can be individualised. This is by taking away from it one or more of its constitutive parts from this matter. This means that these individualised parts also have their own meaning and sense of purpose too.

* The smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property, such as energy or matter theory.

** The mathematical line in physics that separates things that are quantum (measurably real) and those that are sub-quantum (non-measurably real).

I say that all explicit parts and events not only have meaning and purpose, but we can also imagine that these parts and events have individualised sub-things (bits) as well. This means that the physics methodology I am talking about today is at the deepest level of physical reality (this is deeper than the Planck line) and runs into the realm of sub-quantum mechanics as previously cited.* In other models this deep type of methodology is sometimes referred to as being process informational physics. In my discussion today I include us, together with all of our individualised explicit body parts and processes in this section as well. We are also bits of explicit information related to the universal holistic (explicit) universe.

* This realm of sub-quantum mechanics is a sub-layer beneath Quantum Theory as is described by Bob Henderson in NewScientist magazine dated 11/Jul/18.

So when we talk about reality and its associated explicit parts and events I ask ‘How can time and motion be accounted for with respect to these parts and events? How does time and motion influence these explicit parts? Because of the random nature of individualised explicit universal reality this means that an observer, at the Planck line, would observe all explicit ‘things’ coming together by accident with respect to motion and time. I suggest that in order to understand what this means, one must look at something that is anterior (something situated at near or towards the head of something) to explicit reality. This is in order to understand the explicit reality continuum reference frame of individualised properties and characteristics. This includes its boundless magnitude as well.

I believe that all things and events can be seen as being what we commonly refer to as being in the realness of time (all that ‘IS’ in the single reference frame of the universe). Furthermore I say that in order to understand all that IS, we have to be able to identify and describe some sort of continuum* (platform) for explicit reality to be built upon in order to demonstrate how and why it works in the manner that it does and to make physical sense. Such a platform is also necessary in order to understand how and why wider universal reality works at its deepest level.

* Like a universal platform that all things are connected to somehow.

The continuum needed is one that needs to demonstrate why all things in the explicit reality continuum act in a coordinated way, although no force passes through space between these things. I see this different continuum (medium) as being one that the explicit continuum is metaphorically swimming in. I refer to this abstract and non-measurable continuum medium as being the (non-local) implicit informational continuum of universal reality. (This is a different interpretation of non-locality that I talk more about both below as well as the rear addendum that is the traditional physics interpretation). The explicit continuum can be seen as a measurable informational mechanical things and events relating to matter. Explicit things and events can be seen as being the (local) explicit reality continuum of universal reality. It is these two universal forms (continuums) that are informationally representative of all that ‘IS’ in the universe. I am further suggesting that the universe is aware of itself, and has its own mind and can think.

I have demonstrated the dual nature of universal reality. There are two continuums in universal reality. One is non-local (implicit) and the other one is local (explicit). In some cases I refer to explicit as being local. I also use the word local in a different context to that commonly employed by mainstream physics. The implicit continuum is the analogical orchestra conductor of the dual system because it ensures all things and events in the universe act in the coordinated manner that they do because of its memory relating to all that “IS”.

How all ‘things’ work in the universe from an implicit and explicit perspective

The dual nature and characteristics of universal reality is an ever changing and vibrant one of random informational processes that are implicitly and explicitly entangled with each other. This explains how the universe acts and behaves in the manner that it does. Mechanical (explicit) realness in this universal system is only observable by an explicit observer at rest on the Planck line. This explicit observer would not observe the implicit field (continuum) within which all explicit things are implicitly analogically swimming because this is a different reference frame altogether. The observer would only observe the explicit continuum on one side of the Planck line and nothing on the implicit side of the Planck line. The observer would then consider that the implicit continuum did not exist. Furthermore an observer would also not realise that they too were swimming in the non-local implicit continuum together with all other explicit things and events swimming in the universe. However, a second observer observing from the reference point of the Big Bang and chose the reference frame of the universe to observe, this observer would see observer number one was observing two different continuum’s from the Planck line. This is because observer number two could observe both the non-local implicit and local explicit continuum’s at the same time. This is together with the Planck line. The number one observer observing from the Planck line could not do this.

Whereas the mechanical explicit continuum can be individualised into parts and sub-bits, the implicit field cannot be. In this sense explicit parts and sub-bits can be seen as being the mechanical properties (the associated influences and effects) of the implicit continuum. This relationship gives the dual implicit and explicit relationship meaning. It also explains how explicit things and events have hidden (but testable) properties. Furthermore they explain why ‘things’ happen and behave in the manner that they do. Quantum Theory describes and makes predictions relating to the implicit and explicit entangled holistic reality relationships that I am currently discussing at a ‘basic’ level. However, Quantum Theory does not explain from where the information came from for it to make such predictions in the first place. By this I mean information that explains how and why quantum mechanics describes and makes the predictions that it does and furthermore from what source does quantum mechanics “learn about, obtain and explain” sub quantum “things and events” in the manner that it does. I see this as being the fundamental short coming of Quantum Theory.

Standard Quantum theory seems to make no serious attempt to look at the multiple sub-layers of physics that would produce added meaning to its description, experiments and predictions. For these reasons I see my dual implicit and explicit reality continuum reality theory as a model that fundamentally addresses this shortcoming in Quantum Theory. This is because it brings together and describes all things and events that are observable and measurable (explicitly) real within the universe together with a describable medium that holistically ‘holds- together’ and explains why it works in the manner that it does. I believe it is only because my model informationally incorporates the implicit sub-level ‘platform’ of quantum mechanics that it can do this. This deep informational ‘level’ of quantum mechanics has been repeatedly demonstrated by the silicon in water experiment as seen both here and here.

The history

Implicit quantum entanglement and non-locality have been known for more than fifty years in physics. Quantum entanglement theory was proven by experiment by Bell as far back as 1964. It was first speculated about in the early 1920s. However, although non-locality had been predicted at around the same time, it was never convincingly proven by experiment. However, this situation has now changed. As recently as mid August 2018 two separate and reliable experiments have finally validated the earlier non-locality theory. They are profound! As I stated above they provide the link (by means of my demonstrably real implicit continuum) that brings together all things that are both non-unitable (implicit) and unitable (explicit) in the universe and make them as one.* This is the universe we live in and experience it to be. The two experiments are initially cited a little further down as well as in the “Quotations from other works” at the conclusion of this presentation.

* The common interpretation and description of non-locality in science is that all “things” know what all other “things” and events (phenomena, action and movement) are doing at any location of the universe in any instance. This is as though the universe has its own mind, memory and can think as if it has consciousness. This is a different theory to Quantum Entanglement that demonstrates by experiment that all things (objects such as particles) are somehow entangled with each other. You will find in the addendum at the rear why I treat these two theories as though they were one with respect to my concept of an implicit continuum. Some physicists say that non-locality proves that quantum entanglement is a valid theory.

The personal aspect of my message

These two new experiments explain how and why matter works in the manner that it does. It explains how we locally and non-locally (explicitly and implicitly) are the human beings that we are. They also explain how and why we randomly make the types of decisions that we do.* This is more especially so by means of separating our explicit consciousness (that can be treated as being like being an explicit, measurable, tiered structure) from our implicit selves that has no measurable structure. I refer to our implicit selves as being the ‘without time’ life force within us all. Because of its nature given without time characteristics I have nominated our implicit selves as being NOW. I chose the word now because I see it as being an immeasurable representation of our implicit intuitive awareness of all things including ourselves. Furthermore it is a representation of who and what we are and what we might think about ourselves. This includes what we may (psychologically) mean to ourselves as well as expect of ourselves in terms of our future hopes and ambitions for a more fulfilling life experience. These words demonstrate the wide ranging and flexible nature of the implicit and explicit model theories. This is together with alternative theories relating to influences that somehow non-materially also affect matter.

* This is by means of segregating and broadly describing the human brain, mind, consciousness and thought construction nexus in terms of my explicit and implicit ideas. Within this nexus I describe how I consider that the non-local “part” of this nexus is NOW. I see our personal NOWs as being our direct “link” with the wider universal continuum of the universal reality system. I see our short term memories as being determined by electron spin and our longer term memories by the nuclei of phosphorous in posner molecules inside neurons (I have written extensively about my ideas in this area).

The implicit and explicit continuum demonstration can be theoretically tested and is conceptually provable by experiment

The implicit and explicit continuum model has indicatively been tested by physicists such as Amaroso, Hiley-Bohm and Cahill. Both the continuums that I have described are inseparably entangled with each other in a concurrent relationship. “Things” and events related to the explicit continuum on their own can be proven by conventional physics experiments. This is if they were the sole frame of reference from which measurements were taken of such explicit things. However, this ignores their wider entangled relationship with the “dominant” implicit continuum (my idea) as is demonstrated by the silicon and water experiment in relationship to the diverse numbers of sub-quantum mechanical (non-local) layers as described by Henderson and others. The ever changing and unpredictable dual nature of the implicit wave (of an observable explicit particle) in universal physics is an example of this. The two experiments cited below demonstrate the existence of an universal “something” that I have nominated as being the universal (non-local) implicit continuum.

The Quantum Entanglement and non-local theories (non-locality) demonstrate that my notion that all things and events in the universe are somehow in a concurrent relationship with each other. This includes at the deepest level of sub-quantum mechanics informational physics. I have demonstrated how sub-quantum mechanics information exists! This must be the case because otherwise quantum theory would not make sense or work in the high degree of accuracy that it does. Henderson’s implicit sub-quantum mechanics ideas set the informational ‘rules’ for quantum mechanics as it does with the wider quantum theory that in turn is relational to the Standard Model of physics. Furthermore I believe that most “curious” thinkers would accept that “somethings” are going on around us that are not physically accounted for in the science community. It follows from these words that it is probably desirable to say that the onus is on unbelievers of the implicit/explicit continuum model to prove otherwise.

At the rear of this document I have provided you with a comprehensive addendum in order for you to better understand and appreciate the wide depth of meaning in this presentation. I see this as being especially so with respect to all life forms. These life forms include the wider human condition.

Summary

My words describe not only how all explicit ‘things’ and events are related but also how they implicitly and explicitly act in a coordinated way as though they are entangled with each other as if they were (non-locally) one. This is as well as being informationally entangled with my concept of the wider universal continuum (matrix) of reality. This relationship is a random one. The wider reality system can be seen as though it is an analogical neural network. The important features and conclusions from this presentation are as follows.

1. Non-locality (nature) is the dominant implicit continuum of universal reality.

2. Implicit nature violates the physics theory of causality (such as implicit thoughts are causal to new thoughts and subsequent behaviour of some kind that can be both constructive and destructive). Things can explicitly happen even though no force passes through the space between explicit things and events to cause such things to happen (like fish and birds moving in formation).

3. Physicists should now consider a theory of common cause of explicit reality such as one with an implicit nature continuum.

4. Explicit measurable outcomes can be mathematically implicitly known before such measurements and outcomes are explicitly knowable.

5. The implicit universal continuum coordinates explicit information that explain the following types of phenomena in physics and our everyday lives include:-

A. Consciousness and intuitive awareness.

B. How and why implicit events occur. These include clairvoyance, telekinesis, out-of- body experiences, hands-on healing and ghostly apparitions such as some people claim they have experienced.

C. How implicit ‘things’ are always appearing to ‘lurk’ beneath the surface of all explicit things and events and “secretly” influences our lives.

D. All things are possible (regardless of size or type) in physics at the implicit (below quantum mechanics) quantum level. There is no exception to this!

E. All things and events, including life forms, are correlated to wider universal reality in both explicit and implicit forms.

F. The entangled nature of all explicit things and events in relation to the wider universal (implicit) nature of all things also means that the vast amounts of information that we learn about and experience in our lives are directly related to the manner in which we think and make decisions.

Experimental evidence supporting the existence of the entangled implicit explicit continuum theory as well as its associated entangled relationship with the (implicit) non-local and entanglement theories.

Both experimental results were publicly released in reputable physics and medical journals in August 2018. These are: Science Daily magazine, 20th of August 2018, and the US National Library of Medicine, 24th of August 2018.

Experiment 1:

Cosmic Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars

Published by the American Physical Society on the 20th of August 2018

Dominik Rauch,1,2,∗ Johannes Handsteiner,1,2 Armin Hochrainer,1,2 Jason Gallicchio,3 Andrew S. Friedman,4 Calvin Leung,1,2,3,5 Bo Liu,6 Lukas Bulla,1,2 Sebastian Ecker,1,2 Fabian Steinlechner,1,2 Rupert Ursin,1,2 Beili Hu,3 David Leon,4 Chris Benn,7 Adriano Ghedina,8 Massimo Cecconi,8 Alan H. Guth,5 David I. Kaiser,5,† Thomas Scheidl,1,2 and Anton Zeilinger1,2,‡

Conclusion for this experiment:

Quote:

Conclusions. For each Cosmic Bell test reported here, we assume fair sampling and close the locality loophole. We also constrain the freedom-of-choice loophole with detector settings determined by extragalactic events, such that any local-realist mechanism would need to have acted no more recently than 7.78Gyr or 3.22Gyr ago for pairs 1 and 2, respectively—more than six orders of magnitude deeper into cosmic history than the experiments reported in Ref. [38]. This corresponds to excluding such local-realist mechanisms from 96.0% (pair 1) and 63.5% (pair 2) of the relevant space-time regions, compared to ∼ 10−5% of the relevant space-time region as in Ref. [38] (see Supplemental Materials [45]). We have therefore dramatically limited the space-time regions from which local-realist mechanisms could have affected the outcome of our experiment to early in the history of our universe. To constrain such models further, one could use other physical signals to set detector settings, such as patches of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), or even primordial neutrinos or gravitational waves, thereby constraining such models all the way back to the big bang—or perhaps even earlier, into a phase of early-universe inflation [31, 38]. Such extreme tests might ultimately prove relevant to the question of whether quantum entanglement undergirds the emergence of space-time itself. (For a recent review, see Ref. [58]).”

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05966

Experiment 2:

Testing Local Realism into the Past without Detection and Locality Loopholes

Ming-Han Li,1,2 Cheng Wu,1,2 Yanbao Zhang,3 Wen-Zhao Liu,1,2 Bing Bai,1,2 Yang Liu,1,2 Weijun Zhang,4 Qi Zhao,5 Hao Li,4 Zhen Wang,4 Lixing You,4 W. J. Munro,3 Juan Yin,1,2 Jun Zhang,1,2 Cheng-Zhi Peng,1,2 Xiongfeng Ma,5 Qiang Zhang,1,2 Jingyun Fan,1,2 and Jian-Wei Pan1,2

Conclusion for this experiment:

Quote:

In conclusion, we perform a null hypothesis test which rejects local hidden variable models taking place as early as 11 years before the experiment with high confidence. Looking into the future, our experiment may serve as a benchmark to progressively rule out local hidden variable models deep into the cosmic history by utilizing the randomness in quasars of high redshift or even cosmic microwave backgroud in future experiments. Further, we may find interesting applications in device-independent quantum information processing [21, 32, 59–65]. Scaling up the spacetime extension in the local realism test is being actively pursued [66, 67]. The same system may also help to examine the hypothesis for human free choice [3, 6, 8, 52, 68–71] and gravitational effect [72, 73] and to address collapse locality loophole [74–77].”

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07653

Addendum:

(Clarification of principle text)

Descriptive preamble

I describe two continuums relating to universal space reality. I say that the primary continuum in this relationship is the implicit continuum which is non-local, and that non-locality is also entangled with information relating to contemporary physics quantum entanglement theory. Furthermore I say that the explicit continuum is in a concurrent entangled relationship with the implicit continuum and that the explicit continuum is related to both Einstein’s Special Relativity (S.R.) and General Relativity (G.R.) theories. The laws of physics of both continuums are different from each other. I argue that this duality of continuums of all that “IS” in the universe is a continuation of the conditions that existed at the original point of the Big Bang.

However, the conditions that existed before the Big Bang are different from universal space in the sense that the time in the pre-Big Bang frame of reference is fundamental time. I have nominated this fundamental time as being holistic reality “real” time. Following the Big Bang explosion all explicit things and events emanating from the explosion relating to universal reality (clock time) became relative to implicit real time in our universe. In this sense implicit time is the “dominant” time of the universe. These words define my dual concepts of an implicit and an explicit continuum. I see that the conditions (things and events) of the explicit continuum are “swimming” in the condition of the implicit continuum are non-local. Einstein called his space/time model local realism that related to moving objects in respect to local clock time. This also means that local clock time in Einstein’s special relativity theory is also “swimming” in non-local real time.

More detailed discussion

In order to better understand this dual continuum, imagine Einstein’s special and general relativity models are set out two-dimensionally on a table as though they were a jigsaw puzzle. Further imagine that the table-top is white with both of Einstein’s models being illustrated and informationally described on white paper. This puzzle can then be considered to be the local continuum, and furthermore this continuum also includes all the laws of physics, as physicists understand them to be. Keep in mind that this local explicit continuum also has missing features that inhibit it from being considered to be a single representation of a unity model of physics.

Now set aside a piece of black cardboard that contains all the information that I just referred to as being the entangled conditions that were present at the time of the Big Bang (including fundamental implicit real time). The next step is to lower this same black piece of information on cardboard onto the white table with Einstein’s illustrations and associated model descriptions described on the top. The next step is to lower the black piece of cardboard (featuring its information on the underside) on to the top of Einstein’s information on the white tabletop featuring descriptions of both his S.R. and G.R. models. By superimposing one layer of information on to the other layer of information you will see why I think this act of superimposing the information from the Big Bang explosion onto both Einstein’s S.R. and G.R. model makes informational sense.

By bringing together complete implicit information with incomplete explicit information as I have demonstrated. This means that Einstein’s incomplete model of information then allows it to be said that both of his S.R. and G.R. models are complete. One can also assume that by bringing both of Einstein’s models together at this point, his combined theoretical ideas then constitute all the information that is needed to describe a unified theory of everything. The mechanism that allows this unified theory to be described this way is by means of informational process. The Cahill Process Physics model does this and so does the Hiley-Bohm and Awareness models too.

It is easy to imagine that the two continuums that I am talking about are separated by a single two-dimensional line between two points. However, it is a much more complex situation than this if one superimposes the implicit continuum that I have described on to the explicit (relativity) reference frame. What has happened here is that the information relating to both the implicit and explicit reference frames is entangled to the degree that both the implicit and explicit frame are a single reference frame (continuum). By this I mean that this dual entangled implicit and explicit continuum has become an informational representation of all that “IS” in the universe. All that “IS” in the universe is my concept of universal reality.

This also means that this entangled implicit and explicit continuum is representational of both implicit fundamental (real) time and different degrees of relative emergent (local) time in the explicit Einsteinian models. I say that different degrees of emergence in the explicit continuum, because of time dilation in local time, vary in accordance with gravity variations linked to movement in local time. I say that this time dilation with respect to gravity is because gravity is a feature of the implicit continuum and clock time, together with the condition of the speed of light being explicit continuum conditions. These explicit continuum conditions are entangled with the non-local conditions of the implicit continuum.

Both these continuums feature different laws of physics, and furthermore elementary particles like gluons, prions and quarks do not comply with the laws of physics as we see them on the macro scale. It is because of these reasons that such elementary particles can be considered to be marginally non-local and implicit as well. This means that the relationship between both the implicit and explicit continuums can be both causal and non-causal at the same time with respect to different conditions between the implicit and explicit continuums. Things (including particles) relating to relativistic mechanical events are causal but explicit mechanical movements of objects through the non-local continuum are not causal with respect to the non-mechanical nature of the reference frame of the continuum itself. My concept of the absolute nature of the implicit continuum is not causal.

In summary, the relationship between explicit things (like particles) between both continuums can be seen as being waves of things. These are waves of things that are causal in the explicit continuum and events related thereto that are not mechanically causal in the implicit continuum.

In this sense, waves in the implicit continuum can be seen as types of sensations (like fictitious forces) that then in particle form, in the explicit continuum, can be simply seen as being tendencies between explicit particles in the explicit continuum. The relationship between the two continuums is that they have inter-relational entangled features of certainties. Certainties mean that there is no unconsidered activity in the implicit continuum. (This is because of the implicit continuum having its own mind, which can think and instantly respond to what is happening across the width of the universe.) This is not the case in Einstein’s relativity models because both of his S.R. and G.R. models relate to my concept of an explicit continuum only. (They ignore my idea of an overreaching style of an implicit continuum).

Within this relationship “things” like sound, electricity and light can be seen as being like fictitious disturbances in the non-local implicit continuum, but are explicitly “real” in the explicit continuum. This is because it is the condition like those relating to light that in all cases (such as the speed of light) are relational to the explicit continuum and are not fictional disturbances as they are in the non-local implicit continuum. You will see from these words that all things and events related to such “items” in both continuums are inseparable. No things and events in the well defined regions of Einstein’s space-time theory are from an implicit non-local perspective, separated as Einstein predicted. This is because my implicit non-local continuum is entangled within his models anyway, for reasons that I have just given.

What needs to be seriously considered

Both of Einstein’s models are explicitly related to my concept of an explicit continuum only, and therefore I consider them to be incomplete from my dual and inseparable concurrent modelling point of view. For the same reason, this also means that the speed of light has no absolute meaning in the Einstein general relativity reference frame continuum either. This is because in such an inseparable non-local reference frame that I am referring to (as superimposed upon the same Einstein explicit continuum) has no meaning and therefore any things or related events moving in the implicit continuum. They also have no meaning because all things in the same continuum are already connected anyway. All movements of objects in the implicit continuum occur in relation to (real) fundamental time, as I discussed earlier. This means that Einstein’s general relativity model is incomplete because all things in his general relativity model are related to measurements with respect to the speed of light in reference frames (like my explicit interpretation) inside our universe. Such things cannot be both connected and non-connected at the same time in my concept of a non-local implicit continuum.

With respect to (implicit) fundamental time, time is an unchangeable “block” of space where the past, present (NOW) and future are all the same. This means that in the implicit continuum the future is already “written”. This also means that explicit things and events relating thereto, “live” in both the implicit and explicit continuum at the same (explicit) time. They both explicitly exist and don’t exist at the same time! Furthermore, within this implicit and explicit continuum, nothing whatsoever is off limits. These include paranormal phenomena (things that can’t be scientifically explained) as well as human beings and other life forms that we all explicitly experience. These experiences can be likened to a continuous flow of moments with respect to clocks in the explicit continuum but we never “die” in the implicit continuum. The difference between both is merely a change from an explicit to an implicit state.

This blog should be read as an extension of my blog entitled: The inescapable duality of all “things” (Currently under review)

If you care to have greater insight into my implicit and explicit continuum ideas I have provided additional explanatory information that you may care to context with the information that I have already provided for you in the following quotations from other works that I have written can be found here.

The inescapable duality of all “things”

My ideas about all that “IS”

Introduction

There can now be little doubt that our space-time universe is “swimming” in a sea of sub quantum mechanics weirdness. The world of physics continues to largely ignore this reality yet it has known for nearly one hundred years such a deep level of physics exists (it has to if quantum theory is to be seen as a valid theory in physics).  The reason for this is that in this abstract sea of weirdness is where the ‘legs’ of all that “IS” around us has emanated from this non-physical sea. I believe that the legs of reality are implicit and all other ‘things’ (including quantum theory) that ‘rest’ upon these abstract legs are explicit. You and me are both implicit and explicit. A fish is both implicit and explicit and so is a rock on a mountain. The universe is implicit and explicit. If these types of way-out ideas stimulate your imagination then I suggest that you consider what the following implications for physics might be is if this is true:

1] Both Einstein relativity models are incomplete.

2] Faster-than-light influences are possible.

3] Nature is non-local  and by means of both quantum entanglement and non-locality theories (they are much the same), “all things” are possible in the universe.

4] Nature violates local [physical] causality. The common cause of all that “IS” is the ‘heart’ of sub quantum mechanics.

5] Physicists might have to consider a theory of common cause of reality.

6] Physicists might have to consider that causal influences are not limited to the speed of light in the universe, or alternatively, that events can be correlated for no observable reason.

7] Physicists might have to ask themselves if correlations do not imply a cause, then ask themselves if they should look for other causes of events.

8] Implicit measurements and outcomes can be known before they can be explicitly known.

9] The theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete (what is its sub base?).

10]  Non-Locality (entanglement) can make the impossible happen in the universe.

11] Physicists might have to look again at reality and decide if they think it is irreducibly random, or alternatively whether it is without knowable cause and is non-local. This means how the settings of one measuring device can influence the readings of another instrument irrespective of distance, location or time.

12] Non-local correlations demonstrate that in any laboratory, nature can mathematically answer any question without knowing which questions are being put to it from another laboratory in another location.

13] Simultaneity in physics can be demonstrated and can be shown to not only be related to the speed of light.

14] Non-Local (sub quantum mechanics) theory addresses the following inexplicable type of phenomena in physics such as:

14.1] Consciousness and awareness

14.2] Where the properties of particles come from.

14.3] Where charge and mass come from.

14.4] How out-of-body experiences, clairvoyance, intuition, telekinesis and suchlike might occur non-locally and manifest themselves in the manner that they do.

14.5] Demonstrate how quantum non-locality (entanglement) is always lurking beneath the surface and events. This includes all things we might think about and do.

14.6] From my words above all things are possible in physics at the Quantum and sub quantum mechanics levels [possibilities to do “something”, whatever they might be].

What follows is a descriptive answer as to how the mystery of non-locality (derivative of ideas relating to sub quantum mechanics theory) can be better understood in physics

The following quotation is from an article written by Howard Wiseman in the 19 June 2014 edition of Nature magazine entitled “Physics: Bell’s theorem still reverberates”.

Quote:

“Two shady characters, Rowan and Colin, approach you, claiming to have a large supply of these impossible squares. When you ask to see one, Rowan says: “No, it doesn’t work like that. For each of our squares, I will reveal one row, and Colin one column. But you can choose which row and which column you want to know.” You reply: “Do you think I was born yesterday? In each instance, Rowan can say any of his four possible answers (001, 010, 100 or 111) and Colin can choose whichever of his (000, 011, 101 or 110) do not conflict with Rowan’s. For example, if I ask for the second row and the third column, and Rowan says ‘001’, then Colin just has to choose an answer with 1 as the middle entry, either 011 or 110.”

But Colin persists: “What if you prevent me from hearing not only Rowan’s answer, but even the question put to Rowan? Take us far apart, and lock us in rooms that shield all forms of communication. We will still give consistent answers 100% of the time.” You think to yourself: “In this case, their best strategy would be to each carry (or memorize) a predetermined list of answers to all possible questions. In a given trial, the respective answers that Rowan and Colin carry would have to correspond to squares that differ in at least one of the nine entries, because of the constraints on the rows and columns. If I conduct enough trials, choosing the questions at random, I will catch them with inconsistent answers soon enough.”

So you agree to the trial as suggested; you ask questions in one room and an assistant in the other. To your consternation, Colin and Rowan give consistent answers every time. How is this possible? Are they communicating, despite all your efforts? No, they are using pairs of ‘entangled’ quantum particles — each pair of particles was jointly prepared in the same way, and then one kept by Rowan and one by Colin. With each trial, Rowan picks the next particle in his store, measures one of three different properties (depending on which row you ask for), and gives you one of his four possible answers based on the result of his measurement. Colin similarly processes his next particle, the one paired with Rowan’s. By the ‘magic’ of quantum entanglement, their results are correlated precisely so as to simulate an impossible square.”

You will discover many of my ideas with respect to these challenging questions and statements in my blog entitled “The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

Ref. 1]

What the theory of Quantum Entanglement is and what does it mean in science?

Ref. 2]

A significant amount of information in this blog is derived from Wiseman’s writings as well as from the Scientific American article entitled: How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality”, by George Musser on 1 November 2015.

Note: I believe that because my ideas with respect to all ‘things’ being either (non-locally) implicit or explicit cannot be tested in a lab that the onus is on unbelievers of my reality-science concepts to prove otherwise. I would be happy to hear from you at any time.

Do you care to know more about the highly important Global Consciousness Project [GCP]?

Does this blog provide a pointer to the mysterious side of the human mind?

In my opinion the most significant section of this video presentation commences at the 38 minute mark [more especially from the 40 minute mark]. This section relates to the employment of a random event generator.

The video

If you care to know more about the Global Consciousness Project [GCP] I have provided you with two links:

Link 1

Link 2

I also think my readers should acquaint themselves with this link because it provides a scientific pointer as to how consciousness [I say awareness] may exist outside of our bodies. Readers should also note that the United States government is taking a serious interest in this project. If the sub-quantum physics theory is one day confirmed this means that alleged out of body experiences and phenomena such as ghosts should be taken more seriously.

The chaotic physical process that defines the laws of nature

How did we get here?

The following video argues that reflective equations postulated by Turing predicted the underlying chaotic nature. It also states how nature self organizes itself into beautiful patterns which seem to come from nowhere. I wonder if fractal patterns are also a manifestation of Turing’s predictions? [Although Benoit Mandelbrot discovered fractals.] I will introduce you to this fascinating video by quoting the words of Edward N. Lorenz.

Lorenz wrote:

“At one point I decided to repeat some of the computations in order to examine what was happening in greater detail. I stopped the computer, typed in a line of numbers that it had printed out a while earlier, and set it running again. I went down the hall for a cup of coffee and returned after about an hour, during which time the computer had simulated about two months of weather. The numbers being printed were nothing like the old ones. I immediately suspected a weak vacuum tube or some other computer trouble, which was not uncommon, but before calling for service I decided to see just where the mistake had occurred, knowing that this could speed up the servicing process. Instead of a sudden break, I found that the new values at first repeated the old ones, but soon afterward differed by one and then several units in the last decimal place, and then began to differ in the next to the last place and then in the place before that. In fact, the differences more or less steadily doubled in size every four days or so, until all resemblance with the original output disappeared somewhere in the second month. This was enough to tell me what had happened: the numbers that I had typed in were not the exact original numbers, but were the rounded-off values that had appeared in the original printout. The initial round-off errors were the culprits; they were steadily amplifying until they dominated the solution.” (E. N. Lorenz, The Essence of Chaos, U. Washington Press, Seattle (1993), page 134)

I invite you to view one of my favorite scientific videos

More about Alan Turing that you may care to know

I care to talk about entanglement

In physics quantum entanglement suggests that phenomena are somehow connected to each other, and furthermore, under certain conditions influence each other

My purpose in writing this blog is to attempt to more clearly identify and describe what quantum entanglement may be. I present you with the following information in an attempt to demonstrate to my readers what I consider to be the different interpretations of entanglement in science. It is my opinion that the most popular scientific definitions of entanglement are incomplete (where did it come from?). For my readers I will outline what I think are the most common interpretations of quantum entanglement.

1] A simple explanation of quantum entanglement

2] Wikipedia definition

3] Proof that entanglement a is valid hypothesis

4] A video pertinent to entanglement

5] My views about quantum non-locality are as follows. I believe that both these scientific concepts cannot be effectively separated. Some physicists say that non-locality describes entanglement:

Entanglement implies that information is either shared between two particles or communicated between them in such a way as to cause observations of one particle to be correlated with observations of the other.

Such correlations have been predicted and observed for many years, but it has been difficult to determine if the correlations were caused by information being shared such as through gravity.

Non-locality implies the existence of direct connections between one point in space and another, without going through intervening points. Such direct connections would allow communication faster than the speed of light.

As I suggested above there can be different manifestations of non-locality. One of these is Newton’s force of gravity is theoretically non-local because it theoretically propagates at infinite speed. This is what I believe is happening via the physics model that I have described in another blog entitled Reality with a Matrix

I have written a specific blog wherein I discuss the duality of all that “IS”. with respect to non-locality and sub quantum mechanics theory.

[Item 5 was written with the assistance of M.P.]

Reality with a matrix

A statement with respect to the Awareness Model of Physics

This blog demonstrates the conceptual unified Awareness Model of everything. That is, all that “IS”. This blog should also be considered in conjunction with my other blogs entitled “Comparison of three models of reality, “The Awareness model of physics and “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment”, “The day science lost its way” and “The inescapable duality of all “things””. This blog completes a nexus of information that comprehensively describes my unity model, what it is, how it works, and why it works in the manner that it does. This also includes what the model itself may mean, as well as what the model might mean for us all as we go about our daily lives, because the Awareness model is one that presents itself as being a holistic matrix of informational reality.

I see us and our planet and the wider universe as being explicit “things” and events that I refer to as being explicit information. All things and events that are not explicit I refer to as being implicit information. The respected philosopher and scientist Paul Davis believes that informational physics will one day become the primary investigative model of physics. I believe this as well. I also agree with the idea that reality physics should be considered to be a type of process physics.

Introduction

At different sections of my website I have referred to the Awareness model of physics as being Primordial Awareness (PA). In this blog it is the Awareness model (AM) that I am primarily concerned with. This blog provides a step-by-step insight into the holistic structure of the AM, and why it is probably conceptually different from all other physics models of its kind. It makes philosophical and scientific sense. The AM is a unified model of all that ‘IS’.

If you peruse my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment” you will see that the AM is a pre-geometric model of reality. If you read another blog of mine entitled “Comparison of three models of reality” you will see that the AM is a process model that phenomenologically is almost the same as two other models, the Cahill Process Model and the Hiley-Bohm Holomovement Model. However, whereas the Cahill and Hiley-Bohm models provide evidence for an absolute reference frame (like process quantum foam),  the AM speculatively describes what such a quantum reference frame physically is. It is space foam, and I will show how and why it works in the manner that it does. The AM is both testable as well as being supported by a described experiment. The AM describes reality as being in three parts. These are:

1. PA is the implicit non-local reference frame (continuum) of a three part matrix. I refer to PA as being the non-local sub-quantum conditions (a state in which something exists) of the matrix. These conditions are not reducible but they are changeable. Furthermore the matrix is absolute without time.

2. Quantum foam (space foam [SF]) is the explicit local condition of the PA holistic reality matrix that is in a separate concurrent association with it. SF displays geometric and fractal properties. Quantum processes explicitly emerge in SF so as to give it physical meaning and purpose. SF is connected with clock time.

3. There is an implicit effects field (IE) that is a separate condition and influence of the informational PA matrix. This IE influences the emergence of the two energy types into the SF reference frame continuum. These two energy types are gravity and electromagnetic forces. It does this by means of a self referential network process.

The AM is a condition that demonstrates how these three described conditions explain the phenomenon of reality from an absolute motion perspective. It also demonstrates how reality is a stochastic* and iterate** process. This is a process described and explained in Homotopic Field Theory***. Therefore PA reality is a continuum of dynamic change. This means that there are unlimited numbers and patterns of information in PA that only have indeterminable meaning. In other words, PA is a virtual neural network.  PA is the physics inertia frame**** of this continuum. This is an inertia reference frame (matrix) that, from a non-local implicit perspective, is always informationally complete in itself and without time. This is because it is a system that is perpetually changing and expanding within itself. It does this as a neural network.

* In its simplest form, a stochastic process can be thought of as a description of the movement of an object over time.  At every new unit of time, the object could assume one of many possible positions, and each position has a probability associated with it.  While we cannot know the exact path that the object will take, we can make inferences about the path it might take based those probabilities.

** The process of repeatedly applying the same function is called iteration. In this process, starting from some initial number, the result of applying a given function is fed again in the function as input, and this process is repeated.

***Homotopy Quantum Field Theory (HQFT) is a branch of Topological Quantum Field Theory founded by E. Witten and M. Atiyah

****The motion of a body can only be described relative to something else

The above ideas have been extracted from Wikipedia

By way of an analogy for this network, imagine a rectangular glass aquarium with crystal clear pure water in it. This water can be considered to be PA. This representation of the inertial reference frame continuum is the reference frame I just mentioned. Non-local (imaginary) information from within the water begins to expand. Within this process, the water inertia frame takes upon itself quantum waves. These waves might be represented by unlimited different shades of colour. These different shades of colour naturally disperse like new water-based paint used by artists in order to portray some sort of visual effect in their work. It is this process of analogical colour dissipation in the aquarium that is representational of the expanding neural network in PA.

This is a network that also engenders patterns within itself. They are are patterns of information that are a blend of different colours. Where the different colours meet each other, they can be seen as nodes, and from these nodes new and unlimited colour types and shades emerge, that can be considered to be links of shades. In this process, these shades become more and more opaque and indeterminable. Thus they ‘die’ and have no meaning. On the other hand, some of these weak  colours may meet other stronger colours at different nodes, which reinvigorates the system overall. Thus the colour dissipation system engenders it own form of energy type that in turn reinvigorates the potential for new stronger colours to re-emerge within the system. It is for this reason that the overall system is in a perpetual state of renewal.

It is this underlying stochastic process in the wider PA system that influences the emergence of waves and associated wave motion that are meaningful to the neural network system. It is this meaningful pattern of wave behaviour that random [non-geometric] patterns of deep and irreducible fractal patterns of information emerge. Each fractal pattern embodies its own ‘node’ of information. Each fractal node has links to other fractal nodes. An unlimited collage of patterns of nodes and links become entangled with each other and create patterns and structures of information that mean something. In addition, they have the potential to do something and at the same time have some sort of purpose for the system itself with respect to its changing growth and renewal processes. These processes also have a separate geometric meaning and purpose of some kind in SF that might include self-imposed parameters (not rules) within which the overall system operates. Both Cahill’s Process Physics model and the Hiley-Bohm Holomovement models of physics are process models that are similar to the holistic Awareness model, except that the AM is described as having three informational and describable conditions that give it greater ontological and physical meaning and purpose.

What I am saying is that the AM is representational of a holistic information system that ‘embraces’ both implicit and explicit information which we can mostly understand and physically work with. PA is a natural vacuum of all that “IS” in the AM model. All ‘things’ and events organise themselves within this vacuum. PA is the internal energy type (by means of its neural network) in the vacuum of the model. All things and events ‘swim’ and organise themselves within this holistic PA vacuum. It is PA energy that gives rise to the PA neural network in the first place (this process is described in my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment”). It is from this same self-organising neural network that patterns of information arise that evolve internally within the system. PA is aware of all things including itself. This is why I refer to my model as being the Awareness model. PA is a single separate reference frame. It is like the water in the aquarium analogy that I recently cited. It is a common ‘fluid’ relating to all things and for this reason it might be called ethereal, but not the traditional ether that has been commonly talked about and researched in physics over many generations. PA is an influence without time. It is the ‘backbone’ of space foam (SF). SF can be seen as being explicit like a 3D representation of local informational types that ‘emerged’ from PA. SF and PA are in a concurrent relationship without time. Notwithstanding this, implicit PA remains the primary field of influence of all that explicit SF ‘does’ within itself. This is because of its second tier IF field of gravity and electromagnetic forces. The neural network system of PA and SF are the same network. Apart from gravity and electromagnetic forces, the neural network is the common link between the two.

The foundation elements relating to the Primordial Awareness Model

PA is the non-local implicit medium (condition) of the three-part matrix. QF is the explicit condition of the holistic reality matrix. The IF is a condition of PA with two different energy types,  gravity and electromagnetic forces, as demonstrated earlier. There is a dynamic 3D relationship between all these energy type forces. It is because of the concurrent entangled relationship of these combined energy forces that it is possible to have a pre-arranged wave function whereby there is one set of particles with another adjacent wave function in the same region of space as the first group of particles. Furthermore they can act in an entirely different way. The presence of the sub-quantum medium of PA provides the effect so that different groups of particles can behave this way if one treats the Planck line as the dividing line between local SF and non-local PA conditions. This arrangement can be seen to allow this phenomenological construct to extend some sort of gravitational type that is both the ‘embryo’ of SF (which acts as a repository for local matter) as well as the latter effects of this matter from within the growing matter structure. This matter structure in turn influences the construction of geometric forms.

It is the coming together of both these local and non-local forms  that causes the dilemma known as the quantum measurement process. Because observers measure a particular process, they are undeniably part of the wider holistic concurrent PA and SF process system. Remembering that observers are an entangled part of the system, it is this contradiction between supposedly individual observers and the wider PA and SF process system that causes the wave particle collapse at the point that measurements are taken. In other words the local and the non-local focus of an observer cannot observe and measure the local and non-local form of other things. The observers are both locally and non-locally entangled with each other as well as other things and related events.

On one hand there exists the concurrent relationship between the implicit PA wave and on the other hand there exists within the implicit wave an explicit particle. It is the explicit act of measurement by the observer that forces the implicit wave function relating to a particular measurement event to collapse into the two describable states of an implicit wave and explicit particle. It is these particles that can be depicted on a screen that appear to be in patterns. These patterns of particles are in respect to the inherent patterns of structures emanating from the geometric properties of the growth the effect of the hidden and undetectable neural network. It is this undetectable relationship between implicit and explicit influences between implicit waves and explicit particles of matter that David Bohm referred to as hidden variables. It is this implicit and explicit behaviour in space foam that is the manifestation of the stochastic process of SF. It is a description of the movement of “things” and events relating to time. My description of this process also explains the random nature of the wider SF process and why it is necessary to employ mathematics in order to predict probabilities relating to the behaviour of such a state of dynamic SF activities.

It is important to realise that this wave particle duality also explains the mystery of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in physics. What is happening is that the dual nature of waves and particles is no more than the wider explicit SF field being a dual natured concurrent one within the wider implicit PA matrix. It is the wider implicit PA reality field that is the medium by which one particle can influence another particle on the other side of the universe in an instant. It is not the SF field continuum. Implicit waves and explicit particles are two different systems concurrently related to each other within the wider holistic space foam system.

This means that whilst implicit and explicit influences and effects appear to an observer to be related to a single particle, this is not the case. It is the holistic universal system itself that is in a wider state of dynamic duality. It is a duality that makes ‘space noise’ that is assumed in the model.* My words relating to this dynamic implicit and explicit space foam relationship can be seen to be similar to Einstein’s explanation of Brownian motion which explains the reality of small random fluctuations in a given medium of atoms and molecules in no preferred direction. Quantum mechanics and all implicit predictions relating thereto are derived from the Awareness model or models similar to it such as Cahill’s Process Physics and Bohm’s Holomovement Physics model.

* Is self referential, like thinking about one’s self, noise that is the non-local PA driver of the PA and SF system as it relates to the self referential neural network.

The implicit effects field [IE] that I have described are excitations of the continuum of the reality PA [non-local quantum vacuum] that are the conditions for the merging in the SR field of elementary particles such as electrons, neutrons, prions and quarks. It is also conditioning influences and effects for the emergence of electromagnetic and gravitational fields. This is as well as multiple other fields transferring the same dynamic weak and strong interactions between the dualistic implicit and explicit relations of interacting weak and strong forces of the system itself. These forces represent the different types of collective motion of the implicit PA quantum vacuum with which SF is a conjunctional relationship. This concurrent dualistic relationship between implicit and explicit influences and events [energy types] is also one embodying implicit and explicit fractal patterns.

I am saying that in the implicit PA informational continuum, [say, a field] implicit fractal patterns of information exist within the boundless matrix. These same fractal patterns manifest themselves in the explicit fields of space foam as well, and in nature around us in every conceivable way. They are visually apparent within most reference frames. These include flower petals, geographical land systems and body organs. The wider cosmos can be visually observed to be fractal-like as well. Therefore fractals can be seen, and informationally they acknowledge the inherent informational patterns of all that “IS”.

This means that both the continuum of PA and SF are in a dual implicit and explicit relationship as well as with PA implicit waves and SF explicit particles. In other words, fractals might therefore be seen as the scientifically describable micro-physics that is a manifestation of the deepest level of the sub-quantum world. Fractals are the heart of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics fractals are implicit informational representations of a hidden stochastic PA system [like a imaginary neural network] that allows quantum mechanics to be  like a hidden but describable emergent set of rules that are exclusively relevant to the explicit SF universal system.

It is this type of stochastic quantum mechanics that predictions are entangled in the explicit SF system. This is a system that is the source of quantum fluctuations particle movements within the system. It is the non-local PA field of the concurrent SF system that means that the electromagnetic energy relating to the negative charge of light travels faster than the speed of light itself, but implicit signals can be propagated by means of the PA field as well. It is this faster than light property in the cosmic bulk {further described later herein} in the PA field of this implicit quantum activity that causes  the fluctuations in the explicit SF field that seem to be instantaneously correlated, but are not. Such correlations can only be detected by an observer in the SF field. The same functions when informationally present in the implicit PA field are a representation of the hidden variables Bohm talked about in his Holomovement model of Physics.

The broad structure of the Awareness model

The nexus of reality is the continuum of dynamic change. It is as though the past and the future do not exist. In this sense the nexus of reality is “NOW”. This also means that reality is without time. The matrix of reality is information that has quantum potential to mean something. Because it means something, this quantum potential can also be seen as energy which acts on a quantum particle in local SF conditions. Locality in SF is merely a relationship that dominates the explicit SF but it has no validity at the implicit PA quantum level. At the Planck line between implicit PA and explicit SF, the wave disturbance between both SF and PA forms pressure waves of gravity in accordance with Homotopic Field Theory. It is from this field that the PA reality system may be envisaged as being a single mathematical fractal [an implicit and explicit fractal either side of the Planck line] at all scales. This means all that “IS”. Although the relationship between information either side of the Planck line is complex, a topological soliton effect ensures at first glance that the concurrent relationship with each other is impossible.

However, the implicit and explicit neural network relating to either side of the Planck line of the matrix of reality comes to the fore in explaining how this difficulty is overcome. It is the repetitive iteration and stochastic processes of the process of function input [the inherent energy within the neural network itself] that does this. This process is without time. It is from this concurrent iteration and stochastic process that it forms its own loop in the neural network system that separates the relationship as though the separate parts of the implicit and explicit reality matrix are that of a coil. This coil can be seen to be like an implicit and explicit transition loop which is neither  clockwise or anticlockwise. In other words, the joint iterative and stochastic aspects of this wider process [the topological soliton]  brings upon itself a reconciliation of the opposite effects of the implicit and explicit function at the Planck line.

The affirmation of this conciliation can be seen by means of charge. The Planck line itself can be seen as a neutral charge. The implicit information from the PA condition of the matrix of reality is negative. Conversely explicit information relating to SF is positively charged. The neutral charge at the Planck line is symbolic. In this sense the Planck line is like a “place” from which informational context can be identified as it relates to the implicit and explicit influences and effects at the point of the Planck line.

This act of continuous transformation of implicit and explicit information from one function type to another is the Homotopy of the holistic matrix of reality function overall. Homotopy is the process through which information passes through the loop at the neutrally charged Planck line so as to provide a continuous geometric map force informational space transfer between the two. This is from PA implicit space with its concurrent but separated SF partner at the neutral charge point at the Planck line. This implicit [negative] and explicit [positive] informational meeting at the Planck line is in a continuum of deformation of each other. It is this process of mutual deforming that explains the dynamical three space of the Awareness model. It might also explain the dynamical information models of Cahill’s Process physics as well as the Hiley Bohm Holomovement model.

My description of the key elements of the Awareness model can be best summarised this way: By once again employing the glass aquarium analogy cited earlier, and by filling it with matter, observable excitations would be created. These excitations are of a concurrent implicit and explicit type. The matter in the aquarium is also in a state of excitation with the glass of the aquarium. An observer of the event is similarly in a state of excitation with both the glass of the aquarium as well as the matter contained within it. Because the top of the aquarium is open to its immediate wider environment [say with your kitchen as a frame of reference] the excitation of the matter in the aquarium, the observer, the observers watch and all of the objects and events in your kitchen are experientially in a state of excitation with each other as well. Explicit “things” and events in your kitchen are linked together by means of the explicit neural network relational to space foam. Implicit things and events [hidden variables] are related to the same explicit things and events. This is by means of the hidden variable conditions of Quantum Entanglement.

The duality of things and events in your kitchen is also a representation [say a hidden image] of all that “IS”. This also explains how you and I are in an entangled relationship with the holistic informational matrix of reality. In this sense you and I could also be seen as observers entangled within the matter within the analogical aquarium looking out through the glass of the aquarium as a whole. In other words because all things and events are implicitly and explicitly entangled with each other, then Einstein’s observer with a clock, observing a chosen reference frame of his own choice, is not a valid one. The observers and their clocks are implicitly and explicitly entangled.   This includes the observer’s decision to select any given reference frame in the first place. The only reference frame that is a valid one to an observer is from an explicit [neutral charge] bubble located in a reference frame on the implicit [negative charge] side of the Planck line. The bubble then allows observers to remove themselves and their clocks from both the concurrent implicit PA and explicit SF condition relational to the Awareness space foam model.

Foundational elements relating to relating to the structure of the Awareness model

What follows are more details about the structural embryo of the ontological concept of the matrix of reality. This is the matrix that is the foundational platform for the awareness model. You will find a small degree of repetition here from earlier sections. I have done this as a matter of convenience.

At the outset there was nothing. This means there was no here and now. Furthermore nothing was without time. I have entitled nothing as being conceptual awareness [Primordial Awareness]. The influence of a mathematically demonstrable embryonic “something” emerged from primordial awareness that in the first instance might be considered to be an analogical blob of something that might be as abstract as a simple idea. This blob is symbolic. From this symbolic point, PA became connected to such a blob. This relationship determined what might be the informational parameter of a mathematically describable matrix of “reality”. This matrix of reality became a process and structure that is akin to a neural network. This neural network is like an analogical sea of information that acts as if it were waves of a compressed fluid. This sea of information is a continuum that is non-local, and it is like a sea of fluid that contains something that is undetectable. This is because it is beyond the magnification capabilities of even the most sophisticated microscopes and other scientific equipment. These “somethings” are pixels of information. If such a microscope or equivalent scientific piece of equipment existed, it would need to be able to magnify pixels more one thousand million times to find them. These pixels have a describable history that can be computer modeled.

Although pixels are not electrons, they can however be seen to have memory like the spin of electrons in space. These pixels can be seen as embryonic elementary particles because pixels* act as a movement in waves. However, we must consider them as being imaginary because of their smallness in size. This is as virtual particles do that are described in Quantum Theory. Pixels can also be seen as virtual particles that can move in every direction. Furthermore they do this at speeds beyond the speed of light in PA, the cosmic bulk.  Virtual particles can also be seen as imaginary matter. You will find that I describe this elementary process relating to the properties of reality in my blog entitled “The Awareness model of physics”. These pre-space processes, concurrently entangled within the continuum of PA, are non-local and exhibit instantaneous effects that I have talked about in respect to informational movement and transfer in the wider matrix of Primordial Awareness.

*In PA, pixels are abstract influences which have a dual aspect of implicit virtual effects. In SF these same pixels are real as they relate to the neural network’s inherent energy type.

Informational reality is fundamentally quantum waves. These waves are virtual [imaginary] sub-quantum waves in the implicit negative energy fields of the PA frame with respect to the Planck line. In the positive energy field of explicit space foam, real quantum waves are embedded in SF, by this I mean that the classical explicit world which we experience and live in [physics emerging macroscopic phenomena]. Classical physics is processed [induced] by the nature of the real quantum waves of SF. It is this process that enables the SF system to be dynamic.

The emergence of explicit information from the space foam [things and events related to matter and objects] challenges the standard model of physics that claims that space relativity is relative to an observer’s choice of a single frame of reference for objects, movement and clocks. This means that the concept of explicit SF with respect to the wider concurrent implicit informational field of PA can be viewed as being as single frame of reference in its own right. This is despite SF being in a separate concurrent relationship with the wider informational field of PA. PA is the holistic implicit reference frame of all that is. This means that the reference frame of explicit space foam is in a concurrent but real relationship with the implicit reference frame of PA.

Like the Cahill Process Physics model, the Awareness 3D space model [excluding clock time as it is applicable in the Special Relativity model] can be seen as a static space foam that Lorentz mathematical equations can be applied to. The dynamic space foam of the Awareness model is in the form of patterns of SF constantly moving and changing with inherent informational pixels therein. This means that the explicit SF has a life of its own with respect to the same neural network effects that implicitly apply to the PA matrix of reality. The undetectable noise of the implicit PA informational network is real noise in the explicit space foam frame of reference of the Awareness model. This is because the system itself is implicitly and explicitly dynamic.

With respect to the Awareness model, clocks slow down with movement in SF. In SF time it is a self-organising process relating to movement of objects in successive order. This is different from the Special Relativity model that is historically geometrical. In the SF neural network reference frame, there is “friction” between the self-organising process of a neural network and the stochastic random process during iteration. It is this competitive friction within the SF system that is conducive to the emergence of “healthy” and strong modes of behaviour. By this I mean that the holistic SF system itself [embodying the neural network] is always expanding by means of the strong nodes and associated links to these nodes that both informationally mean something as well as have possibilities to do something.

In the implicit PA matrix frame of reference, these are virtual nodes and links, whereas in the explicit SF frame of reference it is “things” and events that are both explicitly possible as well as explicitly on standby to do something with respect to the changing dynamics of the SF neural network itself. SF is not a fluid. It is by means of the implicit and explicit duality of the holistic PA informational awareness system that it is possible to transmit non-local interaction through the sub-quantum medium of PA as though it was a bulk. Faster-than-light tachyons can travel in the wider condition of PA.

I consider that the previous sections of this blog contain the most compelling information within this work. For this reason, for the remainder of my presentation I will talk in more general terms. If you find that my new words seem to conflict with what I have said earlier, the earlier text takes precedence.

How the Awareness model works

A more general discussion about ‘things’ and events relating to the modelling of the system.

The analogical sea of fluid (neural network) randomly expanded from a state of potential new information as well as possibilities to do something. The notional pixels in the sea of fluid are representational of matter and events related to matter. This includes energy types, influences and effects relating to the behaviour of matter as it is observed by means of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. This includes their respective influences and effects as well. Events are without limit in space foam. This means that such events are also without limit in all other universes and dimensions that might exist as well. PA is not only the common continuum of all that is, but it also embraces within itself informational virtual particles. I have nominated these virtual particles as being pixels.

Therefore PA is like an imaginary influence without time that effects all that ‘IS’. It is the metaphorical backbone of SF. PA not only influences all things and events, but it also affects itself as well. It does this by means of patterns of waves. These PA informational influences are also representational of all non-local and local ‘things’ and events. PA is not ether but it might appear to be so because of its entangled state with all that ‘IS’ (reality). PA is far more ontologically dynamic than the traditional Newtonian and Lorentz  models and other non-local ether type models too) because it is a single reference frame continuum. This is a reference frame from which all things happen in the wider informational field of the matrix or reality. This includes Einstein’s space/time universe that is informationally different from the awareness model because it does not feature or describe a continuum, nor does it attempt to discuss or describe fundamental cornerstones such as how particles have the properties that they do, or where mass and charge come from. The Awareness Model does this. The PA virtual particles create patterns and structures of both local and non-local “things” and events.

These virtual particles create patterns and structures of  both local and non-local ‘things’ and events. Patterns and structures of virtual particles become energy types of their own. This means that they have their own sense of existence as well, because they are aware of all other particles and structures, because they are all interconnected to the wider analogical neural network of reality. This entangled interconnection embraces not only the dynamic SF as described, but also separate energy types and influences such as photons in relation to light, and light in relation to electricity, and magnetism by means of electro-magnetic fields of the wider PA informational matrix of reality. Negative, positive and neutral charge influences are randomly associated with electricity and magnetism with respect to the huge diversity and range of electromagnetic fields. Hidden variables are considered to be entangled within space foam as well. These ontological variables include weak and undetectable cosmic foam pressure points that cause wide-ranging types of gravitational waves. The hidden entangled relationship between PA and dynamic space foam can also be seen as a hidden variable field of influences as well.

Space foam energises itself by means of movement of its own process of conditions, influences and effects. This is as though it has its own mind and is aware of itself. It does this by means of a neural network system as previously described. Space foam is a physical effect in the PA reference frame. PA is a non-local physical effect. In SF, PA is a real physical effect. In both these reference frames they have both the potential to do “something”. This also means, to mean something to both the implicit and explicit reference frames as well. Some of these somethings naturally die in the two systems because they are weak. Other somethings in both these reference frames become stronger possibilities to do something in their respective neural networks and some of these wither and die as well. It is the strongest of the possibilities to do something that survive and in doing so further enhance and strengthen the meaning and purpose of the respective SF and PA holistic neural network systems.

It is from this dual SF and PA system that virtual and real particles [pixels] might emerge that also mean something. Some of these virtual particles (waves) die as well. Meanwhile others form informational constructs that then become foundational space foam particles such as gluons, preons and quarks. These three particle types collectively hold the holistic space foam together in the 3D dynamic space environment. The physical effect of space foam can be seen as being a field that is  related to, but not connected to, the ontological field of influences and effects of Primordial Awareness. There are separate fields of influence entangled within the ‘overlapping’ space foam and ontological PA fields such as electricity and magnetism. There are at least two other holistic reality systems physics models. These are the Cahill Process Physics model and the Bohm Holomovement model. [see article number 20]

From a pre-geometric state to a progressive geometric state. The jelly analogy.

Imagine PA to be a deep tray of pure clear virtual jelly. This jelly is compressible and under certain conditions, waves occur. These waves produce  disturbances then progressively move upwards to the surface of the tray of jelly, and in the process create their own independent ‘jelly fields’ along the way. These independent jelly fields are related to density variations within the jelly, as well as the differing ratios and averages of these respective ‘patches’ of density variations. This includes the associated entangled effects thereof.

This jelly must not break the motion of SF material things and events passing through it. The upper levels of the PA jelly are less dense than the lower levels of the jelly. This variation of density in the jelly creates pressure forces throughout the jelly that include the creation of velocity within the PA system. It is these collective forces that not only permeate the whole tray of jelly, but also cause   the emergence of a PA neural network that in turn influences ‘somethings’ relating to itself. This means evolving and growing. These combined micro and macro phenomena [field forces] that at a distance create non-uniform contact behaviour that influence each other by means of the neural network system entangled within the PA jelly. This is as though it is a neural network with an analogical frame of reference of primordial self awareness. PA is compressible in a static state, and this is what causes this non-unified behaviour by means of processes relating to the neural network.

It is also because of this non-unified behaviour that the jelly has a preferred frame of reference that is SF. This means that the holistic PA frame is one that collectively and randomly [in a concurrent relationship with both] that “embraces” time, motion, velocity, energy and particle size and type. This includes electro-magnetic and gravity fields. It is from this non-unified contact behaviour that elementary particles like preons, gluons and quarks emerge. This then means that the holistic nature of space itself [non-local PA and local SF] is also in a state of average at any given time, state, or location as well. It is in some sort of random geometric uniformity with itself. This means it is always fluctuating but not necessarily for the same reasons. This description also explains randomness with respect to the SF system together with its uniformity.

Furthermore these differing non-local “characteristics” in PA, apart from creating lots of waves that mean something, also create the conditions for gravity fields to emerge from the non-local PA system as well. This process also engenders the condition that includes electrons, by means of electromagnetic forces already inherent in the IE system that is a separate field relational to PA. These words mean that gravity is not only part of the wider PA and SF average but it also embraces the combined PA and SF space average of all other concurrent frames of references to these two non-local  and local fields as well. This in turn makes it a new frame of reference in its own right. It is from these collective non-local conditions and effects that alternative physical and metaphysical things and events might emerge. This is by means of the neural network so other universes and dimensions may emerge.

By way of better understanding this big picture, imagine non-local virtual particles that become an observable local particle on the wave surface of the water in the analogical tray of jelly. These concurrent SF and PA wave particles are concurrently entangled with each other with respect to the common neural network relating to both the SF and PA continuums. Let’s say that this common neural network decides to periodically compress itself within the explicit continuum of SF. This then means that the holistic nature of space (implicit PA and explicit SF) is also in a random state of averages with itself within the continuum of SF.

It is this dynamic changing relationship between both SF and PA that describes the random properties of SF, as well as the geometric properties of SF. It is this random relationship between both the SF and PA continuum that describes the random and fluctuating geometric uniformity in space (SF). Furthermore it is the common neural network process between SF and PA (say like a hidden variable) that relates to the stochastic process of SF, as well as the process of iteration. It is the non-local condition relating to PA in relation to the neural network that engenders the condition for gravity and electromagnetic forces to emerge from the non-local system. This is by means of the implicit effects field (IE). The condition of gravity and electromagnetic forces are in turn connected to SF because of the common neural network of both the continuums of SF and PA.

Closing statement

What I am saying in my blog is that fundamental reality has an informational fractal structure  that is meaningful and describable by the means of Process Physics modelling. I have talked about my concept of reality is in two parts. These parts are implicit, non-local parts and explicit local parts. I have talked about how the primary implicit continuum of all that “IS” is PA and the secondary continuum to which we are related is the SF explicit continuum. It this sense it could be said that because PA is entangled with pixel information [virtual information] it can be seen as virtual particles. We are suspended in some sort of analogical quantum fluid that I have described as being space foam.

The plausibility of my ideas is confirmable by experiment which demonstrates that the implicit quantum- like behaviour can be explicitly reproduced in classical fluids and explained by explicit fluid dynamics in physics. I have shown how quantum particles have been both formed and driven by implicit sub-quantum micro-physics. I have also demonstrated that all things and events, (whether implicit or explicit) are somehow entangled and therefore are implicitly inseparable. This mean that there can never be a clear cut division between things and events that are microscopic and macroscopic.

I have pointed out that unknown but describable micro-physics is the implicit source of quantum fluctuations in stochastic interactive mechanics as is described in Cahill’s Process physics model and in the Hiley Bohm Holomovement model. I have shown how quantum particles and indivisible and irreducible PA pixels are the fundamental informational reference continuum of primordial awareness and how these virtual pixels (electrons) influence space foam as real particles. These particles are entangled in the concurrent implicit and explicit neural network that in turn renders the PA reality system to have the name and nature that it does. This also includes where gravity and electrodynamic forces emerge from.

I have also talked about how we could see ourselves as observers being able to observe all explicit SF things and events in SF as though we were entangled in all things. I demonstrated this in my matter in an aquarium analogy. I also implied that because we are similarly entangled with all implicit things and events we are also like analogical laboratory observers in the deeper matrix of PA reality of all that ‘IS’. I have said that both implicit and explicit reality are also demonstrably mathematically related to Mandelbrot’s fractals at all implicit and explicit scales. Furthermore they are also observable in the wider environment around us. I have maintained that PA is non-geometric whereas SF has geometric qualities and effects. By this I mean holistic fractal geometry. In this sense Mandelbrot’s fractals can be seen as being reality geometry. This goes down to the deepest embryonic seat of physics [say a single thought, patterns of thought and entangled structures of thoughts] to the deepest level of reality that might include the element of lead.

I believe that my Awareness model of physics is a compelling conceptual unity model. I believe that I have described a process model that is informationally comprehensively structured at the deepest level of physics. This is why I have nominated this work as being a concept statement and not a theory. If you feel that the process modelling of physics along the lines that I have employed are in any way unsatisfactory I would be pleased to hear from you. Please also give me reasons why you feel this way. The awareness model is conceptually testable as well as supported by an experiment. Some scientists are mystics, and some people are noetic and know and experience such things as they relate to the universal bigger picture.

Bibliography:

Reference 1:

Certain ideas contained in this blog are derived from the works of Mayeul Arminjon. I have provided numerous informational links within this blog that support my science related views.

Reference 2.

What follows is a link to a video demonstrates how the quantum phenomena can be emulated on a macro [visible to the naked eye] scale:

Quantum effects can be replicated on a macro scale

The day science lost its way

An unusual physics story that I feel all students of science should hear

Introduction

Like you, I was raised as a child to believe that in the world of science Albert Einstein was a genius who was scientifically infallible. I now know that Einstein was very clever, but from my readings I think that he was also an opportunistic and less forthright person than we might imagine. For example, when he announced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 Einstein did not acknowledge that a fellow scientist by the name of Lorentz had developed and announced a very similar relativity model in 1904, relating to electron theory. The mathematical comparisons are much the same as each other. Einstein said he was not aware of this, despite the fact that both men had known each other well for many years. I am also suggesting in this blog that Einstein scientifically cut corners with reality science in order to make things ‘fit’ with his modelling. This means that in my opinion, Einstein knowingly released his two relativity models in the realisation that they were both incomplete, and that his ideas relating to objects, movement, space and time were always likely to never be able to embrace non-local (non – physical) ‘things’. Such things include immobile ether that is not testable or measurable in a lab. Furthermore Einstein set aside other important and already commonly known scientific theories and experiments around that time as well. These include the Michelson–Morley experiment in the United States of America in 1887 (that did detect motion relative to space) as well as the ideas of Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare.

If any physics theory detects ether it automatically contradicts Einstein’s Special Relativity theory. General Relativity treats space as an ether but the idea of motion cannot be applied to it. So according to General Relativity theory, even though the earth is orbiting our sun, at tremendous speed, and orbiting the centre of our Galaxy at even greater speed, it must be assumed that the earth is at rest relative to space itself. This has historically been the conundrum for relativity theorists and experimentalists. It is impossible to have ether in one model and not in the other at the same time with respect to the same theory. By this I mean as a single unity model of everything (all that ‘IS’) from such a contradiction of modeling.

These words form the basis of my idea that follow throughout this text in this blog. These are that there never was a nul result with the Michelson and Morley experiment as many contemporary physicists today claim. In other words I am saying that something ‘strange’ seems to prevail in the laboratories of contemporary physics. Furthermore it has existed for more than a century now.
.
Today I wish to talk to you about both the history and the subsequent consequences of Einstein making what appears to be short-sighted decisions in the manner that I have described. Einstein seemed to be determined that his theories could be physically tested in a lab and as such traditional physic ether theory was set aside by him. Einstein wanted nothing unexplainable (metaphysical) in his theories, and traditional ether theory was considered to be just that. Ether is an immobile theory that (itself) is without time. Movement between objects in the ether is with time. Furthermore because ether has no knowable features it has always automatically been known in the physics community that it was impossible to test ether theory in a lab anyway.

An introductory discussion

Ether theory was first postulated by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century and continued to be popularly embraced by physicists in their scientific modelling up to the end of the nineteenth century. Ether theory is still supported by some members of the physics community today and it is referred to as neo-Lorentzian Relativity Theory or sometimes the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is important. Here is what Newton had to say about his concept of ether:

Quote:

“He wrote, “I do not know what this Aether is”, but that if it consists of particles then they must be exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.”

The reason why a minority of physicists continue to believe in ether theory today is because they believe that there are serious shortcomings in Einstein’s relativity modelling as I earlier alleged. They see his physics as being both incomplete and incorrect along the lines that I have stated above rather than an informational process. Let’s have a look at some of these concerns that might exist between scientists with respect to these claims.

Einstein had linked his models to light as his primary point of reference for his modelling. Some physicists felt that his theory did not stand up to deeper scientific scrutiny, nor did his idea of linking light with time. However, Einstein was correct in defining the speed of light as being 300,000 km/s because this is exactly the speed that Maxwell had determined it to be with his theory of electromagnetism in the middle of the eighteenth century. The big difference between the two, however, is that Einstein calculated his light speed as being that within a vacuum of space-time, whilst Maxwell and other prominent scientists at the time (such as Fitzgerald, Poincare and Lorentz) felt otherwise. They felt that Maxwell’s determination of the speed of light should be related to an electromagnetic field existing within the immobile ether frame.

For purposes of convenience I refer you to the Wikipedia article that follows relating to light bearing (luminiferous) ether. This additional information is inserted to help fill in the gaps relating to the history and allied debate that I am presenting to you.

Quote:

“… Lorentz (with others assisting) had spent nearly thirteen years developing his electron relativity ether theory. This theory tried to explain the null result of an earlier (1887) physics experiment to determine if the earth was moving in space”.

“In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The (alleged) negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley (M+M) experiment suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the M+M experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn’t needed by Einstein. (I emboldened). The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the black-body radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light.

The modern understanding is that heat radiation is, like light, electromagnetic radiation. However, Newton viewed heat and light as two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited “when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body.” The problem for traditional ether theory is that it does not bring to account for the variations of speed which are seen emanating from stars, galaxies and similar large objects that cause the flow of space past the earth to vary in speed.

Thus it follows that the 1887 M+M . experiment was to demonstrate that “… if the earth was acting like a spaceship moving through Lorentz’s concept of an invisible and massless cosmic ether at the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion, then it should be lower than it is in a direction at right angles to this. By measuring these speeds it should be possible to detect the earth’s absolute velocity relative to the ether. The velocity of the earth’s orbit around the sun is around 30 km/s. Any motion through the ether should be at least as much at some time of the night or day of the year”.

Source: A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment

I suggest that in view of the then widely accepted ether theory in the scientific community (from such highly respected physicists such as Maxwell, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and Heaviside), then single supposed null result from just one experiment should have raised a much more serious debate in the physics community than what it did at the time.

I allege that such lack of serious debate encouraged Einstein to take charge of the debate by introducing materialistic Relativity models that for all intents and purposes sidelined any hint of there being an invisible, motionless and without time ether. Some theorists such as Lorentz and Poincare retained doubts about Einstein’s two theories (movement of small objects in Special Relativity and large objects in General Relativity respectively). This state of doubt amongst prominent physicist remained all the while Einstein was effectively promoting his two new theories by means of tertiary lectures and the wider global media.

So then I ask the question “How is it that Lorentz, Poincare and other eminent physicists at the time withheld a seriously challenge to Einsteins theories?” Especially since the maths supporting Einstein’s modelling was almost the same as that Lorentz had formulated and publicly presented in Holland in 1904. [Einstein released his special relativity theory in September 1905]. It is likely this was because Einstein’s ideas were easier to understand and explain, and that in turn quickly captured the imagination of scientists as well as the wider population at large. This is notwithstanding the fact that Einstein’s Special Relativity model that was publicly released in 1905 preceded his General Relativity model that was first published in 1916.

This collective acceptance by scientists of Einstein’s relativity models set the scene for the monumental spread and acceptance of Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity Models across the world. Furthermore as I indicated earlier Einstein’s models are still vigorously defended in the international physics community today. It seems to me that the holistic nature of the ether/electron relativity theory that was promoted by Lorentz and his supporters is one that may have eventually more meaningful led to a physics theory of everything.

More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling

More about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modellingMore about the Michelson and Morely experiment and the first hint that Einstein may have seriously erred with his Relativity modelling

More about the Michelson and Morely experimentAs an introduction to this section I have selectively cut and pasted a section of a Wikipedia article that I feel might be useful to you to better understand the wider debate in this area.I have emboldened what I consider to be key words and sections in this article. It provides insight into the substantial degree of confusion and scientific disagreement disagreement between physicists around the time of the experiment together with the following text thereafter.. As I earlier explained it is this disarray amongst scientists that is the focal point of my message to you today. The quotation also supports the reason why I have entitled this blog ‘The day science lost its way’. Einstein publicly released his Special Relativity model on September 26th 1905.

Quote:

“Albert A. Michelson (1881) tried to measure the relative motion of the Earth and ether (Aether-Wind), as it was expected in Fresnel’s theory, by using an interferometer. He could not determine any relative motion, so he interpreted the result as a confirmation of the thesis of Stokes… However, Lorentz (1886) showed Michelson’s calculations were wrong and that he had overestimated the accuracy of the measurement. This, together with the large margin of error, made the result of Michelson’s experiment inconclusive. In addition, Lorentz showed that Stokes’ completely dragged aether led to contradictory consequences, and therefore he supported an aether theory similar to Fresnel’s… To check Fresnel’s theory again, Michelson and Edward W. Morley (1886) performed a repetition of the Fizeau experiment. Fresnel’s dragging coefficient was confirmed very exactly on that occasion, and Michelson was now of the opinion that Fresnel’s stationary aether theory was correct… To clarify the situation, Michelson and Morley (1887) repeated Michelson’s 1881-experiment, and they substantially increased the accuracy of the measurement. However, this now famous Michelson–Morley experiment again yielded a (seemingly) negative result, that is, no motion of the apparatus through the ether was detected (although the Earth’s velocity is 60 km/s different in the northern winter from summer). So the physicists were confronted with two seemingly contradictory experiments: the 1886 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Fresnel’s stationary ether, and the 1887 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Stokes’ completely dragged ether…” (I emboldened). Source

The Michelson – Morely experiment was about determining the speed of the earth through space and the apparatus needed to achieve this objective is called an interferometer. Interferometers are designed to reflect light beams into reflecting mirrors in order to monitor movement and are highly sensitive to any form of external interference. The apparatus concerned had rigid arms extending from its sides as part of the measuring process. Also keep in mind that the experiment was conducted in 1887 and so the apparatus was obviously not as sophisticated as it would be today. Once again what is more important with these words is that the so-called null result was not an absolute null result at all. What actually happened was that the results, although being seemingly trivial to us, fluctuated across a wide range from 5 to 15 k/s per second. At that time speed was determined by Newtonian mathematical calculus which explains the workings of the universe) as it relates to physics that is in variance with other mathematical modelling employed in science.

If you are technically minded and you would like to know a little more about the null result you will find where I have broadly described the mechanics involved in the general reference section of this blog. It is the only item in this section. I decided to treat this area of discussion separately this way because I feel that all my readers may not be interested in too much technical detail. Furthermore this detail is on the periphery of my primary message anyway.

Only Einstein would have known the reason why he moved from a traditional Newtonian ether type theory to his two mechanical models of relativity. This is despite the wide ranging scientific wisdom and experience of his peers that existed around him at the time. I believe that Einstein embarked upon his new relativity theories knowing full well that Lorentz and other scientists had been working for many years developing their own relativity theories. These other theories were based upon the original electricity/magnetism model theorised by Maxwell which would later become electro-magnetic theory. Einstein ‘borrowed’ ideas from Lorentz with respect to his electron relativity theory in order to make his model ‘work’.

I feel that Einstein should have realised these repeated experiments were telling him something was amiss and they were not just aberrations relating to the interferometer apparatus of the day such as in the M+M experiment. Additionally, the important 1913 Sagnac experiment* is another example of what I am talking about as well as the highly significant findings of Dayton Miller from the mid 1920s to the mid 1930’s. Keeping in mind what I have said so far I feel that Miller’s unfortunate experiences within his physics profession epitomise the many difficulties, contradictions and inter scientist disharmony that prevails in contemporary science today. Despite his negative experience with his peers, Miller was still able to successfully defend his interferometer results for the remainder of his life. Miller remained confident of what he had been saying all of this time because he had repeated the M+M type experiment for a number of times. This is relative to him determining the speed and direction for the motion of the earth relative to space (ether). Miller died in 1941. However, Miller was never able to achieve the high degree of recognition that many of his peers felt that he deserved at the time. Many physicists today feel this way as well. The ideas and scientific experiences of Miller dominate my discussion for the remainder of this blog.

*This is a very good example of the Sagnac experiment. However, it is linked to the theme of geocentrism, that I disagree with. You will find geocentrism is only talked about at the end of the video. I have included this link because of the professional manner in which the presenter talks about the Sagnac experiment.

In defence of the Dayton Miller ether experiment

Since 1933 many other interferometer and similar experiments relating to the same ether wind phenomenon (like Cahill, Morris and Ives) have been conducted with positive results. However, the original 1887 Michelson – Morley experiment must remain the defining (alleged) negative experiment relating to both the historical and contemporary ether-wind physics controversy. In this respect probably the most important statement made by any physicists in defence of Millers findings originated from Albert Einstein. You should take a careful note of not only what Einstein said but also their relevance to the longstanding dispute within the physics which is the purpose of this blog in the first place. I also feel that you should consider why it is that this unfortunate turn of historical events has been allowed to become so historically toxic in the scienctific community.

Quote:

“My opinion about Miller’s experiment (referring to Millers reassessment of Michelson – Morley experiment) is as follows… Should the positive result be confirmed (for unsatisfactory reasons it eventually wasn’t), then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain. However, they would have to be a significantly different theory”

Source: Albert Einstein in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

Einstein means from these words that there would need to be a different type of relativity theory altogether.

I further affirm Einstein’s words in this area in my blog entitled ‘The great ether debate’. Keep in mind in this blog that Einstein was talking about ether with respect to his General Relativity model. I contend that it is not appropriate to say when you are talking about ‘contents’ relating to any eventual theory of everything that you embrace the concept of ether on one hand and deny it on the other.

For some reason Dayton Millers experimental ether results were repeatedly rejected by his peers and so they never formally gained a foothold in international mainstream physics. The reviewers assessing Millers work said that they had rejected Miller’s experimental results for two reasons. The first reason was that Miller had superficially erred with a section of his mathematical presentation supporting his endeavours (which he easily and quickly rectified). The second and more significant reason was that in order to demonstrate the full meaning of his experimental findings (on a normal scale they might other wise seem minimal), Miller had to multiply his measured speed by a factor that would make his final outcomes (values) compatible with the orbital speed of the earth. This was not difficult, nor was it unusual physics practice to do such things at that time.

The problem was that Miller did not have a theory to explain why this factor was needed. This lack of theoretical justification for this factor rendered his results as being suspect to his critics. Millers supporters believed at the time, as Miller himself did also, that these two reasons were trivial with respect to the wider scientific importance of what Miller had achieved with his efforts for the wider science community. The experiment could have become a monumental step forward for physics for generations to come. With these words I am saying that it was Millers hostile peers who were responsible for this subsequent major interruption of the advancement of science throughout the world. I further suggest that the difficulties within the scientific community now would be a much fewer problem today than they are if this more enlightened attitude by Millers peers had been adopted.

My closing statement

As you consider this blog, I request that you not only keep Miller’s story in mind but also all the other professional scientists who over time have attempted to influence the international physics community to honourably and transparently reassess historical interferometer results. Whilst I have only cited three physicists there are hundred of like minded professional scientists over the decades who have recorded similar positive results as these three scientists. Furthermore their respective findings are not always for the same reasons either. If you are a physics student I urge you to conduct your own research with respect to the history and scientific evolution of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories. If you do this I especially suggest that you consider the robust nature of the debate between the pro and anti ether theorists and experimentalists. If you take this opportunity to do so you will see how the theorists have dominated and overly influenced the debate over nearly all of the time since Einstein released his two relativity models. This is in lieu of the experimentalists conducting the field research.

Apart from the general reference I have cited I have also included a general reference area that provides specific information and links for you to consider. This is as well as the inclusion of four (extract) commentaries that I feel might give you greater confidence to the veracity of my general line of thinking in this blog. I urge you to see my general line of thinking as being more important in this blog rather than the descriptive elements of my ideas, which were never meant to be other than indicative information on your behalf in the first place. This means that elementary errors here are to be considered to being being inevitable in a presentation of this type. My formal ideas relating to the Michelson and Morely and the associated ether debate are incorporated in my blog entitled “A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment” including its supporting links. It is my opinion that any unified theory of physics can only be described and understood by means of holistic Informational Process models.

General references

Reference 1.

Greater detail with respect to the technical aspects of the M+M experiment

Here I will talk about why Lorentz and other scientists at the time thought the way they did about both the insignificant result of the Michelson – Morely experiment and the fluctuations of readings of the interferometer itself for the following reasons. In physics there is phenomenon called contraction of rigid poles with the process of movement, as well as time dilation. Time dilation is about the mechanical movements of clocks (not related to their outer casings). Mechanical movements in clocks (let’s say behaviour) are now known to behave differently in different frames of reference. An extreme analogy of this phenomenon is this. Say you had a twin sister or brother and you decided to visit the other side of the universe and return in a rocket.

Physics can now demonstrate that upon your return you would look significantly younger than your twin who remained on earth. What has happened is that you, together with the mechanism of the clock inside the rocket have not slowed down with reference to the inside of the rocket itself. However, you and the movement of the clock have both slowed down in relation to a clock (and your twin) on earth because they in are different in frames of reference, one being the earth and the other the inside of the rocket

A similar analogy applies with clocks inside and outside the ether frame of`reference. A rigid rod contracts in a state of motion for similar reasons to the rocket analogy and these reasons seem to relate to some sort of distortion of molecular forces occurring within rods when they move. Rods materially change in other ways as well. I will provide you with an analogy to what I mean by this. Imagine an ordinary domestic broomstick with two square plates centrally nailed to each end of the broomstick. Now stand the broomstick vertically on end and then place a five kilogram lead ball on the top plate of the vertical broomstick. The weight of the lead ball then partly contracts the length of the broomstick and in doing so puts outward pressure on the centre of the broomstick which then causes it to expand. A transfer of energy has taken place.

This change means that the mechanism of the interferometer (akin to the mechanism of a clock), together with the molecular forces therein, change, and furthermore this same phenomenon includes the rigid arms of the interferometer. They are contracting in relation to the object being monitored in space as well as the rigid substructure of the interferometer itself that additionally sits on a firm concrete or rock foundational base. This means that molecular forces are at play with all phenomena relating to the experiment. By this I mean the moving interferometer relating to different frames of reference.

Whilst to you and me such minuscule movements may seem trivial, in terms of the measuring process of the interferometer it is significant. I think it is worth noting that Lorentz in his electron theory defined these molecular forces as being the gaps between electrons within rigid rods that expand and contract with movement. Furthermore it was from this movement process that Lorentz then decided to relate this movement to the ether frame of reference itself, which he then called ether local-time, or real time. This is the frame of reference from which the physics terminology ‘time dilation’ originated.

In summary, it seemed to Lorentz as well as some of his associates (as well as some scientists today) that it was the contraction of the rigid arms of the interferometer in the Michelson – Morley experiment, together with associated time dilation affect that was responsible for the anomaly. This is the anomaly perceived in the measuring effect relating to the interferometer. Additionally this is along the lines of the analogy I have just given, that made most of the difference in establishing if the Michelson – Morley experiment was a valid one or not. As I suggested earlier, it is possible that Newtonian mathematical interpretation played a negative role in this measuring perception as well.

I believe that because clock space-time is not specifically relevant in an absolute time ether frame of reference (but dilation local-time is), then velocity with respect to space time is not relevant and absolute ether time is not relevant either. Velocity in ether time is only relevant to moving objects within this inertial frame of reference and these objects are not directly connected to the ether. Such objects move in a concurrent relationship with it and not to it. Ether time is regarded as being related to rigid rod contraction relating to movement as I discussed a little earlier.

The mechanical mechanisms of clocks behave differently in space-time ether medium as well because of the phenomenon of dilation. In my opinion this does not mean that Einstein’s relativity models are completely incorrect. I think that his preliminary intentions before he published his Special Relativity model in 1905 were contextually correct, in terms of both of his two new theories original frames of reference. However, it seems to me that he was unable to effectively separate out key elements of Lorentz’s original electron/ether theory and build them into his own two relativity theories. What has happened is that by removing Lorentz concept of an immobile ether Einstein later found he had to reintroduce it again in order to make his 1915 general relativity model make sense.

This fact is difficult to find in contemporary and mainstream literature. It is for this reason I support my words by both quoting Einstein’s statement about the subject as well as hear his confirming words on the matter in a 1920 video clip.

Quote:

“…The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever…”

Allied descriptive reference material

1 The names and professional scientific backgrounds of the scientists that I have talked about or I am informally acknowledging in this blog are Dayton Miller, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, George Fitzgerald, Oliver Hilviside, Herbert Ives and Albert Einstein.

2 I have hyper-linked three videos that I feel would be of assistance to you. These videos are:

2.1 One relating to why light should not be considered as a primary frame of reference in physics. You will also hear about why Lorentz Transformation theory is so important in understanding hidden (metaphysical type) connections existing between infinite numbers of individual frames of reference of both a physical and metaphysical sub-quantum nature – which implies reality.

2.2 A down-to-earth video that talks about what ether is (but not necessarily in the same frame of reference that Lorentz talked about it.).

2.3 If you believe that time is not a meaningless physical concept you may also find Barbour’s video about time to be of interest. Barbour is one of the most respected scientists in the world with regard to this topic.

3. The following text seems to provide sound reasons as to why Einstein was wrong and why Newton was right regarding the speed of gravity with respect to his concept of ether. You will also find many of the points talked about in the text align with my beliefs regarding the subject as well.

Quote:

“The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right

Published Nov. 30, 2012 by Michael Suede

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today.

The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.

I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.

If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”

Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight that physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has piqued your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch the Thunderbolts of the Gods youtube video. I feel that this video might influence your thinking with respect to our universe and how it might work in the manner that it does as well. I do not follow the debate well enough to offer comment on it in this youtube video.

4. In this respect I also suggest that you acquaint yourself with a book I recently imported from the United States of America. The book “The Einstein Myth and the IVES Papers. A counter revolution in Physics”, considers the ideas of Ives as to how he felt Einstein’s Relativity theories might have been inappropriately evolving between the periods of the 1920s and late 1940s. You will note that I have cited Ives in the text.

The following are the four quotes supporting Dayton Miller that I cited earlier

Quote 1.
“… >> While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no ‘outsider’. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000′ elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.>>>”

Quote 2.

“Dayton Miller’s 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v) ….” [my addition, Fizeau verified this using moving water and a light beam]

Quote 3

“What is it with scientists, why does “unacceptable” data cause the destruction of a researcher’s work and their life…
Theory is just made up BS, its the facts, that count, the results of experiment and observation…. the theory as history has shown so many times in science is just made up and should be easily discarded… never…”

Quote 4 (probably derived form a professional scientist)
“…>> Miller’s observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced “…a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics…for azimuth and magnitude… as though they were related to a common cause… The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and…is a cosmical phenomenon.” (Miller 1933, p.231)

Poor bloke…. he found the spin alright…. and just got destroyed for excellent work and telling the truth. Such is the illusion Einstein has created over the whole world…… amazing.

“>> There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Clark 1971”,

>> precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometres per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to … calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results.” (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)

One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: “In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometres per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result”. This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether. >>>”

End of quotes.

Source:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/physics-without-einstein.33219/page-2

Alternative links that indirectly complement this blog:

I care to talk about entanglement

The inescapable duality of all “things”

The now famous Michelson and Morely 1887 experiment

The history of special relativity

My blog about Reg Cahill

The Sagnac effect in detail

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.

Profiles of scientists that I respect and sometimes quote

Below you will find two sets of references that have also played an important role in how I have gone about writing much of my scientific work

6.1 Prof. Roger Penrose

6.2 Prof. Karl H. Pribram

6.3 Prof. David Bohm

6.4 Prof. Rupert Sheldrake

6.5 Prof. Antony Valentini

6.6 Prof. Reg Cahill

6.7 Prof. Richard Amoroso

6.8 Prof. Benoit Mandelbrot

6.9 Prof. Richard Feynman

6.10 Prof. Benjamin Walker

6.11 Prof. Basil Hiley

Reference one:

Important primary material that I have referred to as I have been developing my Primordial Awareness model of reality

http://www.jonathonfreeman.org/the-primary-sourced-scientific-material-i-have-used-to-build-my-awareness-model-of-physics/

Reference two:

Important secondary material that I have incorporated into my science writings

http://www.jonathonfreeman.org/important-secondary-material-that-i-have-incorporated-in-my-science-writings/

A comparison of three models of reality physics

Apart from insignificant technical issues all three models are much the same

If you are interested in the Awareness model I urge you to peruse the contents of this blog together with another blog entitled: “The Awareness model of physics“. this is together with its associated links. This blog is one part of a three part nexus relating to a unity statement that I have made.

Comparison of Three Models of Reality